Main menu

Tag Archives: deeper shared purpose

Does it make a difference if you care about what you do? If you are really passionate and committed to what you give energy, or if it is just something that you do, because there is nothing better to do? I observe that it makes a huge difference. When I am connected to the power of that passion and commitment, I experience far greater energy.

Does it matter how much you are connected to that passion and commitment? From not connected at all, to only connected briefly at times, to connected frequently, to connected much of the time. I experience that how much I carry the commitment and passion with me influences how much energy I give to that commitment. When it is high, I am a continuous ambassador for the passion. Like with my family.

In our fieldwork right now at the Institute for Strategic Clarity, we are developing measures of this continuity power–the power of being connected to the deeper shared purpose, the love of the future for which I give my will. In understanding the geometries of agreements fields, we are exploring how to assess continuity power as one of the key geometries. “Continuity power” relates to (1) the gap between the desired and actual states of the deeper shared purpose, (2) the utility one has for closing the gap, and (3) the time that one is connected to that deeper shared purpose, of closing the gap.

Using the analogy of power, which is the amount of work done in a unit of time, and where work is the force applied over a distance, we see that the distance is the gap, the force applied is the utility to close the gap, and the time is the time dedicated to closing the gap. Power = Work / time = (Force * distance) / time, or Continuity Power = Utility * gap / time. Graphing out this function in the three dimensions shows an interesting geometry, where not all ranges of each of the three variables is possible. We will be mapping this geometry and sharing the mapping of what we find in the world of human agreements fields over the next months.

This formulation also leads to some interesting initial insights, which we are now in the process of checking in the field. Let’s work through the three elements: utility; gap; and time. If the utility to close the gap is weak, maybe because of other priorities, then the work to close the gap will seem to be too great, which will lead to the need to reduce the gap. The easiest way to reduce the gap is to lower the desired state towards the actual state. This is a classic systems archetype, known as drifting goals. If you do not see or connect to the deeper shared purpose, then the time connected decreases significantly, requiring much more continuity power to get the work done. If the work to be done seems to be too much, this is probably a symptom of a low amount of time connected to the deeper shared purpose. If it seems to be just too much work to be done to shift the system towards the desired state, then the easiest solution is to reduce either the force or the distance, the utility to change the system by closing the gap or changing the gap.

Conversely, as the time increases that you are connected to closing the gap between the desired and actual states of the deeper shared purpose, the continuity power required to get the work done decreases. This suggests that it takes far more energy to move the system (to close the gap between the desired and actual states) when not connected to the deeper shared purpose. It is much more efficient to move the system when connected more continuously to the deeper shared purpose. It does seem to make a difference if you care about what you do, and how much of the time you are connected to that passion and commitment. We will be field-testing these insights into the geometry of continuity power in the agreements fields over the next months, sharing here what we are finding.

First of all, what do we mean by co-hosting? We started with the analogy of a party. Are we holding a party, like a meeting, where we are trying to lift the whole thing by ourselves? It’s heavy, because in the holding gesture we are trying to manage the whole and each of the interactions of the part. Surely you have been to a party or a committee meeting where you were micromanaged. How was it? We realized that we liked parties that were hosted more than parties that were held by someone. The host tended to create an environment for a fun party, guide us periodically with food, music, or occasional introductions, generally leaving us to our own devices. By looking for great hosting, we began to notice experiences that were even better than being hosted, where we were invited to be co-responsible for the experience and the outcomes. We were invited to be co-hosts, hosting tougher, with all of us being responsible. That is when we started to play with co-hosting.

When we look at co-hosting through the four lenses of the agreements evidence map–the economic, political, cultural, and social lenses–we begin to see a coherent set of practices that we have observed in very vibrant groups that achieve very high levels of impact resilience.

Co-investing. Through the economic lens, we see co-investing. What are the light, verb, noun resources we each bring to our interactions with each other? When we bring all of who we are and all that we can see to the game, we bring potential, development, and outcomes. We each bring something. I do not contract you to bring only the capacities you already have, rather I invite you into investing with me, co-investing, everything you bring and everything I bring. We have found the co-investing gesture to dramatically change our agreements with each other and with the organizations and communities we engage with in our work. We have begun to measure the outcomes of co-investing by assessing the return on impact-resilience co-investment–the increased return on our investment, in terms of greater impact and resilience from lower costs of scarcity achieved through more powerful agreements.

Integrated conversations. Through the political lens, we see integrated conversations. Our colleagues at THORLO call them ICCs, for integrated collaborative conversations. With decision making and enforcement based on all five primary relationships, who decides and enforces–the political lens–depends completely on the specific relationship-context. Is it a decision for the self, for the other, for the group, for the creative, tangibilization process, or for the source of creativity? They each co-exist within an integrated conversation, each with their own principles and responsibilities. In highly vibrant integrated conversations, we find people contribute freely, interact freely and with mutual responsibility, with the responsibility to participate fully, respecting, witnessing, and learning in the creative process, looking for the sources of creativity everywhere. Doing this turns out to be easy, very practical, and highly engaging.

Deeper shared purpose. Through the cultural lens, we see that people are united by a deeper shared purpose. This deeper shared purpose is what brings us all together, in any specific circumstance, whether we are aware of it or not. Being clear on what that deeper shared purpose is turns out to be very powerful, as it taps into the deeper values that guide our interactions and invite our greater commitment and contributions. We have found that by being explicit about the outcomes and experience we expect from our interactions, we are able to consciously choose agreements that align with these deeper value and the ethical principles that guide our interactions.

In looking at our experience of co-hosting, we now see through the 4 lenses that successful co-hosting requires a coherent set of practices that integrate co-investing, integrated conversations, deeper shared purpose, and collaboration, as four different ways of seeing one experience, that of co-hosting. When the evidence in the agreements evidence map shows that one of these is at a lower level of agreements, then the co-hosting set is not coherent. A high level of co-hosting requires coherence of all 4 at the same level of agreements. While this seems complex at first, in practice it is not. It is a matter of holding oneself to these principles, leading to a much more vibrant experience and much better outcomes. Greater impact resilience.

A colleague told me the other day that she thought of herself as a “co” person, because she found herself constantly working in collaboration and co-investment as a co-host. A very powerful way to invite each of us to be at our best, making our best contributions in our interactions. Maybe that makes her an iCo.